Re: [boost] [quickbook] diagnosing a missing [endsect]?

Subject: Re: [boost] [quickbook] diagnosing a missing [endsect]?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-22 11:49:34

Daniel James wrote:

> Everything looks like a nail? If i wanted to test against master, I would 
> download a snapshot. But even if I did that, the travis tests wouldn't 
> have caught this, as I only run them in C++03 mode. For a few reasons, I 
> don't think Travis is an appropriate place for testing the dependencies of 
> quickbook. Would be better to add it to the main testing setup, but I've 
> never been motivated enough to do that. My main concern is that the 
> automated builds work, and I'm not going to put a lot of effort into 
> guaranteeing constant support for other configurations.

Well currently, "b2 doc" would fail for everyone using Visual Studio 
2013/2015/2017 or g++ 6. It would have failed for me had I not been using 
the ancient 8.0 as a default.

In general, and this is not directed at you personally, the point of testing 
develop against boostorg:develop is to catch such breaking changes as the 
current string_ref one early, before they reach the release. Downstream 
dependencies effectively serve as an integration test for lower-level 
libraries.